You asked if I agreed that my right to self-defense does not include use of a gun. I answered, "Absolutely, not", that I do not agree. That was not flippant.
You asked if I thought foreigners allowed into our country have a right to keep and bear arms. I answered, yes, though the government refuses to recognize that unalienable right. That was not flippant.
Please be specific regarding how any response of mine was flippant.
Furthermore, please provide clarification regarding the scope of my right to self-defense. Surely since you KNOW that it doesn't not include guns, you must be able to state what it does include.
I can say the first amendment protects my free speech right to slander you ... but the government refuses to recognize that unalienable right. I can say the police have the right to search your house without cause and without a warrant ... but the government refuses to recognize that unalienable right.
What's off limits with that as an argument?
The courts have ruled that the right to life is an inalienable, God-given right that man cannot take away. The right to self defense is part of that inalienable right to life. Everyone has it. A four-year-old has it. A prisoner has it. An illegal alien has it. A foreign visitor has it. An insane person has it.
The inalienable, God-given right to self defense does not include a gun. IF IT DID, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one. THEY DON'T.
You say they do but the government refuses to recognize that. As I said, and as I demonstrated, that's no argument. Can you find anything anywhere to support your statement other than "the government's wrong"? Which I consider to be a flippant statement.